The push follows a year-long investigation into Flock and a September Senate hearing at which two subjects of that investigation testified. Lawmakers say the current patchwork of local rules is inadequate for a technology that operates across state lines.

Flock Safety says it has more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states, with more than 6,000 agencies plugged into its data-sharing network. That means even a small department with a handful of cameras can search data captured by tens of thousands of devices used by jurisdictions near and far, and its camera data is often reciprocally queried by thousands of other departments nationwide.

"You have outrage from the far left, and you have outrage from the far right, because you're verging in this 1984 totalitarian-type environment where there's nowhere you can go and not be surveilled," said Rep. Greg Steube, R-Florida, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "[It's] probably one of the very few things that Bernie Sanders and I agree upon."

Steube said the scope of the technology and concerns about oversight have brought together unlikely allies. "If it's a true crime that is being committed, you obviously want law enforcement to have the ability to do that," he said. "But if that has that much of a scope and that much power, it obviously in the wrong hands or in abusive hands can be abused."

Abuse of the system through personal or retaliatory searches is a primary criticism. Flock has emphasized tools to audit use and flag misuse, but the list of officers and law enforcement employees fired or arrested over such abuse has continued to grow.

While some states have passed legislation to increase oversight, no national rules govern the technology. "There is no nationwide regulatory framework that says, 'This is what you can do and not do as it relates to this,'" Steube said. "Even in my district, every law enforcement agency has different rules and policies as to how you can use it and who can use it."

That patchwork emerged largely because Flock's nationwide network was assembled over time through contracts with individual jurisdictions. In some cases, those deals were made with minimal public discourse or without a vote by local officials.

Asked whether Congress needs to act now, Steube did not hesitate. "I definitely 1,000% think we need to do that," he said. He filed his proposed solution shortly after the interview.

Among the bills formally filed:

- H.R. 9800, the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, introduced July 21 by Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tennessee, would bar federal agencies from buying, deploying or operating automated surveillance systems, naming "an automated license plate recognition system, including a Flock Safety camera." It would also bar state, local and tribal governments from using federal funds for those systems.

- H.R. 10221, the Flock-Off Act, introduced Sept. 2 by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, would cut off federal funds for license plate reader and biometric camera systems, including related contracts, subscriptions and data-sharing arrangements, with some exceptions.

- H.R. 10606, the FLAFO Act, introduced Sept. 24 by Steube, would generally bar federal agencies from buying, operating or accessing networked license plate reader systems, with access allowed only through a warrant. Exceptions include certain defense and security agencies, emergencies such as terrorism, and missing-person cases. It would tie Justice Department funding for state and local agencies to similar rules.

- H.R. 10691, the Ban Flock Act, introduced Oct. 1 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, would prohibit federal agencies from using license plate readers or their data unless Congress passes a specific authorization law, which would have to limit data retention to 48 hours.

- H.R. 10822, the ALPR Accountability Act of 2026, introduced Oct. 15 by Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-North Carolina, includes a warrant requirement for queries, deletion of records within one day, and a ban on indexing "expressive attributes" such as bumper stickers.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, has promised legislation that would require mandatory audits and limits on data retention, as well as a prohibition on incorporating facial recognition technology. Other bills address government surveillance more broadly, including H.R. 9716 by Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, and H.R. 8470 by Massie, both of which would require warrants.

Flock said in a statement that its technology is "an important public safety tool for law enforcement agencies across America, helping officers solve serious crimes and find missing people." The company said it supports "thoughtful, bipartisan legislation that puts strong privacy, transparency, and accountability guardrails in place while preserving law enforcement's ability to use technology responsibly to keep people safe."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, sent a letter to Flock more than a year ago demanding answers about the balance between privacy and security. "We decided early on that this was all about warrantless mass surveillance," Wyden said. "They stonewalled, and the more questions we asked, the more we felt it was crucial to get to the bottom of it."

Wyden said the issue transcends philosophy. "All over Oregon, all over the country, people are tired of having their privacy rights stomped on," he said. "And that's what's driving this."

Flock's position has been that it is ultimately not the company's job to police the police — that boundaries and accountability are in the hands of local elected officials. Wyden said he is urging communities to take the decision into their own hands. "I fall on the proposition that at the local level, people ought to look very carefully," he said. "And I'm recommending that people close up those cameras. Make it a local choice."

But Wyden said the company cannot hand off all responsibility. "Of course, the vendor has a responsibility," he said. "And particularly, law enforcement is who you look to, to try and strike that balance."

Constitutional concerns have been another flash point. Flock has maintained that its placement of cameras in public places and safeguards such as a revised default retention period of seven days "protect civil liberties while helping communities prevent, deter, and resolve crime." But in October a federal judge called the technology "a large-scale, dragnet-type surveillance system" and ruled that an Oklahoma officer's warrantless use of it, which the court found lacked probable cause, violated the Fourth Amendment.

"It becomes constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time and then use that information for any purpose whenever convenient," the judge wrote.

Steube said Congress should write the rules because the network is interconnected nationwide. "We should be able to fight child trafficking, kidnapping, armed robbery, all of these things that these cameras help with," he said. "But we need to make sure that it's within the United States constitutional framework when we do it."

Wyden said he does not see liberty and security as opposing choices. "We always wanted liberty. And we always wanted security," he said. "And I continue to believe that in a country as strong and rich and good as ours, we can have both with smart policies."

Lawmakers may disagree on details, but the concern has bridged an otherwise deepening political divide. "Not being stalked and not being harassed is clearly a bipartisan issue. Nobody wants that," said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia, where Flock Safety is headquartered. "Safe from crime, safe from harassment and over-surveillance and stalking. You shouldn't have to choose one or the other."

At the September hearing, Hawley and Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, emphasized the stakes by pulling from issues that normally signal diametrical opposition: Hawley warned cameras could be placed outside gun shows, gun stores or shooting ranges, while Booker warned a state could use the technology to track and prosecute women who travel for reproductive care.

"This is a nonpartisan issue," Hawley told InvestigateTV. "This is just an old-fashioned citizens' issue."

According to published calendars, the 119th Congress has just over 20 working days left, and with unofficial midterm results pointing to a shift to Democratic control of both chambers, committee assignments and leadership are expected to change once the 120th is convened. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, expressed optimism after the September hearing that the agreement could indicate action soon. "There are some clear potential solutions that would have bipartisan support," he said. "There may be an opportunity in the lame duck, if there's enough consensus."